Berghuis v. Thompkins

In Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010) 560 U.S. 370, the United States Supreme Court held that the defendant did not invoke his right to remain silent under Miranda by remaining silent during the first two hours and 45 minutes of a three-hour interrogation. (Berghuis, at p. 2260.) Before the interrogation, the defendant was advised of his Miranda rights. (Berghuis, at p. 2256.) The court in Berghuis stated that in order to assert the right to remain silent, one must unambiguously invoke the right, such as by stating the desire to remain silent or to not talk with the police. (Id. at p. 2260.) The Berghuis court further noted that, even absent the defendant's invocation of his right to remain silent, his statement made "during a custodial interrogation is inadmissible at trial unless the prosecution can establish that the accused 'in fact knowingly and voluntarily waived Miranda rights' when making the statement." In Berghuis, the court held the defendant impliedly waived his right to remain silent by responding to questions during the interrogation under circumstances in which the defendant was not coerced to respond. (Id. at pp. 2263-2264.)